GreenSystem Networks designs and operates cloud infrastructure for organisations across Alabama and the Southeast. Every architecture we deliver labels its single points of failure explicitly, including the ones we chose not to remove and why.
Boxes, arrows, a load balancer, the word redundant used twice. What the diagram does not mark is that both application nodes share one NAT gateway, that the whole thing depends on a single DNS provider, or that failover has never been tested end to end because testing it means a planned outage nobody wants to schedule.
Every architecture has single points of failure. Removing all of them costs more than most organisations should spend, so accepting some is correct engineering. What is not correct is leaving them unlabelled, because then nobody made a decision about them.
So our diagrams mark each one, with the cost of removing it and our recommendation. About a third get accepted deliberately. The client at least knows where the environment breaks, which is more than most know about infrastructure they already own.
An abbreviated reference topology. Each node is labelled with its redundancy status.
Thirteen engineers in Montgomery. No offshore delivery, no vendor partnerships.
Target-state design with every single point of failure marked and costed.
Staged migration to AWS or Azure with the legacy environment live in parallel.
Monitoring, patching, and on-call with response times we publish and miss occasionally.
Scheduled failover exercises, including the ones that fail. Reports go to you unedited.
Right-sizing and commitment planning, reported as savings not as a percentage of savings.
Configuration and access review against CIS benchmarks, with findings prioritised by exposure.
We schedule real failover exercises and send you the report unedited. About one in five surfaces something the architecture diagram did not predict. Providers who do not test have the same rate and find out during an incident.
No vendor partnerships. Nothing we specify earns us margin or a tier, so the AWS-versus-Azure recommendation carries information.
Everything lives in your accounts with infrastructure as code in your repositories. Changing provider does not mean rebuilding.
Current environment mapped, with the unlabelled failure points found.
Target topology with every SPOF marked, costed, and recommended on.
Staged, parallel where possible, infrastructure as code in your repos.
Monitoring, on-call, and quarterly failover tests reported unedited.
State and municipal agencies, healthcare systems, logistics operators, credit unions, and manufacturers across Montgomery, Birmingham, Huntsville, and the Southeast.
Engagements from about $45,000 to $900,000, with platform operations retained monthly.
We decline roughly one enquiry in six, usually where a lift-and-shift is scoped and the honest answer involves application work we do not do.
Founded the firm in 2015. Signs off every topology and its SPOF list.
Fifteen years across AWS and Azure with no certification-driven preference.
Twelve years. Runs on-call and publishes the response numbers.
Eleven years. Orders findings by exposure, not scanner severity.
Their diagram marked our identity provider as an accepted single point of failure. Nobody had ever told us we had made that decision.
A failover test failed and they sent us the report as-is. We fixed it on a Tuesday instead of during an outage.
They recommended the provider they have no partnership with, and explained the reasoning in writing.
If your diagram does not say, that is the finding.